If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Young people seem to be proud these days of their sexual activity. Why should someone be ashamed because he isn't a male slut? At least when he finally does find Miss Right, he won't be giving her HPV for a honeymoon present.

Why would anyone make a public announcement of something that should be personal?

Tebow has been a public figure for six years or so and has always made that part (or lack thereof) well known. Wasn't necessarily advocating doing that, but he's welcome to share his faith & beliefs in my book. It is better than the litany of athletes who father multiple children out of wedlock.

Tebow has been a public figure for six years or so and has always made that part (or lack thereof) well known. Wasn't necessarily advocating doing that, but he's welcome to share his faith & beliefs in my book. It is better than the litany of athletes who father multiple children out of wedlock.

And we are free to mock him, as we would one who promotes Islam, Voodoo, or magic crystals from underneath a football helmet.

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
-- H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956)

Tebow has been a public figure for six years or so and has always made that part (or lack thereof) well known. Wasn't necessarily advocating doing that, but he's welcome to share his faith & beliefs in my book. It is better than the litany of athletes who father multiple children out of wedlock.

Tebow is out of place in the NationalFelons League

The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.

And we are free to mock him, as we would one who promotes Islam, Voodoo, or magic crystals from underneath a football helmet.

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
-- H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956)

Mencken's comment implies that you should not gratuitously insult someone else's religion, just as you would not gratuitously insult their family. That's not exactly the same thing as mocking them as if they were promoting Islam, Voodoo or magic chrystals. Also, there's a world of difference between the Judeo-Christian traditions and Islam, Voodoo or the latest fad among spiritualists, and to pretend otherwise is the height of ignorance.

Mencken's comment implies that you should not gratuitously insult someone else's religion, just as you would not gratuitously insult their family. .

On it face I would agree with you, however Mencken was not known for his charm. I think there is a certain maiden aunt "One should if one were to..." quality to his statement.

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H L Mencken, in American Mercury (March, 1930)

Originally Posted by Odysseus

That's not exactly the same thing as mocking them as if they were promoting Islam, Voodoo or magic chrystals. Also, there's a world of difference between the Judeo-Christian traditions and Islam, Voodoo or the latest fad among spiritualists, and to pretend otherwise is the height of ignorance.

Not to the objective observer there isn't. A god is a god. There is no more objective reason to believe in G_d, God, or Allah (praise be whatever...). Nor is there any reason to believe that Voodoo rituals bring love, crystals heal, or Indian dances bring rain. It's all a primitive belief system devised to explain phenomenon to the ignorant raised to the level of a metaphor for understanding the unknowable (see Campbell).

There are indeed differences at any given point in history as to the amount of damage religion is causing, and to what degree it is being used as government or by a government. "God says so." was devised purely to add weight to men's decisions.

On it face I would agree with you, however Mencken was not known for his charm. I think there is a certain maiden aunt "One should if one were to..." quality to his statement.

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H L Mencken, in American Mercury (March, 1930)

You chose the quote. I'm just pointing out the implications of it. Mencken wasn't known for his charm or his looks (Having Gene Kelly play the character based on him in Inherit the Wind must have tickled him), but he was known for the precision of his writing. The quote would seem to be a call for benign neglect of the subject, rather than confrontation at every turn.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Not to the objective observer there isn't. A god is a god. There is no more objective reason to believe in G_d, God, or Allah (praise be whatever...). Nor is there any reason to believe that Voodoo rituals bring love, crystals heal, or Indian dances bring rain. It's all a primitive belief system devised to explain phenomenon to the ignorant raised to the level of a metaphor for understanding the unknowable (see Campbell).

That depends on what you define as an objective observer. Obviously, you mean yourself, but your animus towards religion renders you quite unobjective. An objective observer might also note that Judaism and Christianity have a tradition of seeking empirical knowledge, intellectual curiosity and scientific inquiry that the other religions that you cited lack. The basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian creation myth imply that the universe operates according to set laws, which can be discovered and applied, and that it is the desire of God that we do so. The Islamic version of the creation denies any limits or laws, and simply presumes that the will of Allah governs everything, and that cause and effect are illusions. It is this fundamental philisophical difference that separates the religions.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

There are indeed differences at any given point in history as to the amount of damage religion is causing, and to what degree it is being used as government or by a government. "God says so." was devised purely to add weight to men's decisions.

The amount of damage caused by religion is offset by the good done by it, just as the amount of damage done by secular systems is sometimes offset by the good done (although one would have to work hard to find the good done by the Soviets, People's Republic of China, Khmer Rouge, National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany or any of the other secular movements whose refusal of the idea of a god didn't serve as an impediment to playing god). Your kneejerk reaction to all things religious doesn't set you apart as smarter or more enlightened than anyone else. You might as well stop the perpetual rebellion and just let other people think what they will, to the extent that they don't impose it on you.